Re: Paranoia as cult bonding mechanism

--- In, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> --- In, Vaj <vajranatha@> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Jul 9, 2006, at 1:01 PM, curtisdeltablues wrote:
> >
> > > "Second, of course, "anti-TMer" is an entirely
> > > legitimate label for those who, like Barry and Vaj
> > > and Curtis, routinely attack the TMO, MMY, and TMers
> > > (individually or as a group)."
> > >
> > >
> > > Since I have been on this group I have heard far more criticism
> > > coming from others, some of whom practice TM.
> >
> Vaj writes a post that is pathognomonic of the anti-TMer:

Same comment i just made to Vaj. Why use lablels. And particualrly,
why use false and inflamatory (IMO) labels. You and Spraig are far
from fundamentalists or True beleivers. I have written two recent
posts making and substantiating that point.

And Vaj is not an "anti-TMer", IMO, just as you are not a TBer. He
started TM at a young age, became a teacher. He was more INTO it than
you ever have been, it would appear to me from 3000 miles away. Later
he found other things more useful to him. He moved on. That he
observes flaws in the TMO is not surprising. I think we all do.

That he flings unwarranted labels at you and others, is simply silly
IMO. AS silly, IMO, you flinging false (IMO) labels back at him.

> > This is my observation as well. It's actually quite bizarre to see--
> > the "defenders of the faith" end up being perfect reasons *not* to
> > start TM. In fact they may be part of the decline, esp. since
> > there are other outlets now (some more detailed and fuller paths)
> > of manasika japa, sans canned checking routines and insane prices
> > for basic meditation instruction.
> And this such an *old* ploy, an attempt to intimidate
> the critics of the anti-TMers into shutting up when
> the anti-TMers can't respond to their criticisms.

The key point being, as I interpret it (perhaps not implied or
intended by you) is that its far more productive, for the discussion,
readers, and posters, to focus on the points being made -- why they
are logically, cognitively, factually valid or not. And its
unproductive to hurl labels, and defending against inevitable return
flurries of label insults.

> > > Other than responding to
> > > things others have put up I have not initiated any criticisms of
> > > TM. This designation of "anti-Tmer" is a stupid label in a group
> > > where most of the posters couldn't get into the dome.
> >
> > It's also stupid because I'm sure many of us don't see TM as a bad
> > thing or as a bad meditation technique, but not merely as a 'be
> > all and end all' that it is marketed as.
> And this is a blatant example of the lack of integrity
> of the anti-TMers. Those who follow Vaj's posts know
> how unremittingly vicious he is toward MMY, the TMO,
> and TMers. A little lip service now and then that "TM
> isn't a bad thing" doesn't somehow neutralize his
> attacks or make him not an anti-TMer.

Thats not my view of his posts. He is critical of things he sees as
shortcomings. He applauds TM for what does well, such as provide
liberation (CC). And he, perhaps cautiously, admits it can provide the
non-dual state. That sounds "positive" to me.

And as to his criticims, some are mainstream and hold water, and are
similar to concerns many of us hold. Other points he makes are subject
to additional scrutiny. And may be weak and flawed. Some appear so to
me. But further rational inquiry will help unfold the reality. Not

> Yes, it's funny, but it's not applicable here, since
> I'm not a fundamentalist and TM isn't a religion.
> Yet another smear that defines Vaj unequivocally as
> an anti-TMer.

And yet you smear him, incorrectly, IMO, as an anti-TMist.

Lets cool the rhetoric and focus on substance. Both of you.

To subscribe, send a message to:

Or go to:
and click 'Join This Group!' 
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:

Reply via email to